Footner v Sturgis
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 07 July 1852 |
| Date | 07 July 1852 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 64 E.R. 1322
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
[736] footner v. sturgis. July 1,1852. A judgment creditor having registered his judgment under 1 & 2 Viet, c. 110, is not entitled to a decree for foreclosure, but only to one for sale. Form of such a decree. This was a claim filed by the assignee of a judgment debt against the provisional assignee under the .insolvency of the debtor, and against another Defendant who claimed to be a mortgagee of certain copyhold hereditaments of the debtor, seeking to redeem the mortgage and foreclose the equity of redemption, or, in the alternative, for a sale. The judgment was registered in the Court of Common Pleas on the 24th of April 1851, and was assigned to the Plaintiff by an indenture of the 1st of April 1852. The Plaintiff had been in possession of the copyholds under an elegit upon his judgment. Mr. Hallett supported the claim, and contended that the Plaintiff was entitled to an order for foreclosure. He cited Ford v. Wastdl (6 Hare, 229 ; S. C. 2 Phil. 591). Mr. Osborne appeared for the provisional, assignee. the vice-chancellor [Sir James Parker] said that the Plaintiff was not entitled to a foreclosure. In the case of a charge the remedy was an order for sale. An agreement for a mortgage gave a right to foreclosure, but a mere charge did not. The order directed an account of what was due to the Plaintiff for principal and interest, under the assignment of the 1st of April 1852, and of the rents and profits of the copyholds received by the Plaintiff, or which, but for his wilful default, ought to have been so received; and, on the provisional assignee paying...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shea v Moore
...sum of 600, and interest at 6 per cent., and this order was registered as a judgment. (1) 3 DeG. M. & G. 530. (5) 13 Ir. L. R. 23. (2) 5 De G. & Sm. 736. (6) 11 L. R. Ir. 200. (3) 3 M. & C. 157. (7) 1 De G. M. & G. 28. (4) 30 Beav. 218. (8j 63 L. T. 416. Vol. I.] CHANCERY DIVISION. 167 By a......
-
M'Auley v Clarendon
...Beavan v. Lord Oxford 6 De G., M'N & G. 522, 523. Ford v. WastellENR 6 Hare, 229. Jones v. BaileyENR 17 Beav. 582. Footner v. SturgesENR 5 De G. & S. 736. Rolleston v. Morton 1 Dr. & War. 195. Ex Parte Boyle 3 De G., M'N. & G. 53. Beavan v. Lord Oxford 6 De G., M'N. & G. 521, 522. Kinderley......
-
Tuckley v Thompson
...and to prove the balance against the estate : Tipping v. Power (1 Hare, 405), Toft v. Stephenson (7 Hare, 1), Footner v. Sturgis (5 De G. & Sm. 736). Mr. Hobhouse, for the administrators. Where a mortgagor, instead of filing a simple foreclosure bill, prays for administration, and for a sal......